Red Alert

Archive for the ‘democracy’ Category

Democracy denied by smug Nats

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 12th, 2011

Earlier this year Phil Goff and I accepted a petition signed by almost 6,000 Kiwis concerned about the government’s cuts to compensation to those suffering from work-related hearing loss. Thanks to National, people with hearing impairment are the only group of New Zealanders required by law to demonstrate a particular percentage of disability before rehabilitation will be offered under the ACC scheme.

At yesterday’s Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee meeting National members voted en-bloc to report back the petition of Louse Carroll and 5857 others to the House without hearing a single piece of evidence. That’s undemocratic and a slap in the face to all those who sought to have their concerns heard by their House of Representatives.

Having actively discriminated against those with hearing loss, the National government is now turning a deaf ear to their concerns. They aren’t even willing to allow them to come to Parliament and have their say. That’s frankly disgraceful. If almost 6,000 people were willing to take the time to sign a petition to Parliament, the least their elected representatives can do is allow them the courtesy of a hearing.


Taking the voters seriously

Posted by A Guest Poster on August 9th, 2011

Jordan Carter is a Wellington-based candidate on the Labour list

The Herald carried an interesting column by John Gardner on Friday last week. He was talking about a desire to see political parties treat voters like adults, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Norway last month.

His piece is part of a broader argument that political parties are out of touch with what most people think and how most people feel, detached by culture and language and focus from the people they claim to represent.

He hits on a point that isn’t often made: the people IN THE SYSTEM have to change it.  There isn’t going to be a magical change in how politics work without the politicians agreeing it needs to change. The system has so much inertia in it that it could carry on for a long time as it is, with rare exceptions.

Those exceptions tend to be big, noisy ones. The New Zealand example is the outburst that followed Don Brash’s Orewa speech in 2004.  That showed what happens when an elite moves far further than public opinion – and then someone in the system breaks ranks and calls out the gap.

As a second-time candidate, I am all too keenly aware that people’s view of politics is pretty dismal. I hate that about the job: it is occasionally and by turns embarrassing, frustrating and demoralising.

I’m not in politics to carry that on, but to change it.

A good way to start turning the system around is for individual MPs and candidates to take voters seriously. To listen to their concerns, their issues, openly and honestly: and to respond with empathy and concern, and with a determination to get things right in addressing the issues people have.

Most MPs actually do this pretty well, whatever side of the House they sit on.

There’s a second vital step where we in Labour need to do better. It’s connecting that individual openness, humility, empathy and determination to solve problems with the party’s overall image, practice and strategic approach.

We have done that extremely well recently with the launch of our tax policy. #ownourfuture has done bloody wonders for the issues people are talking about, the challenge they are putting on MPs and candidates from our party and others to define a credible vision for the future. We had a big policy proposal that would help address some deep-seated problems New Zealand faces.

Labour needs to behave that way across the board.  If there is one thing I would ask of all my fellow candidates and future colleagues in the Labour caucus, it is to take the voters seriously, all the time.  Our party is damaged when we don’t portray that ideal in everything we do.

And if there’s one thing I’ll keep doing as part of the Labour campaign, it is arguing for big policies that make a real difference in people’s lives, and that are open, honest and up front with the challenges that the country faces – and the fact that sorting it out isn’t going to be painless.


8.8.88

Posted by Maryan Street on August 9th, 2011

Yesterday was the 23rd anniversary of the massacre of 3000 protesters who wanted democracy in Burma. They were Buddhist monks, students, activists and workers. They were gunned down by the military regime for daring to want freedom, peace and democracy. 2200 political prisoners still languish in Burmese prisons. In Norway or Burma, democracy is a threat to some people.

I went to my fifth commemoration of this event in Nelson yesterday. It gets bigger every time. We have more ethnic groups arriving from Burma and they bring new horror stories of murder, rape and persecution.

One woman who knows about perpetual struggle in a way to which I will never have to become accustomed, is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Here is a message from Aung San Suu Kyi – yes, to us in NZ – about the Burmese struggle. Enough said.


I got an email

Posted by Clare Curran on August 6th, 2011

Late last night, via my website, which is how many constituents and others contact me directly.

From: Scott xxxxxxx
Address:
Phone:
Cell Phone:
IP Address: xxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Clare,

Firstly, I would like to applaud you on a great speech today at the anti-VSM
protest today. It is very reassuring to hear that some NZ politicians still
have common sense and I think it is safe to say that Labour has my vote in
November.

However, the real issue of my email concerns media sensationalism by the New
Zealand media of Otago University students. Today many well-behaved,
hard-working and politically engaged students held an anti-VSM protest.  For
some unknown reason the media has completely ignored this, yet two years ago
when 150 idiots started a \’riot\’ on Castle St, it was the first news
bulletin for two days. The NZ media consistently referred to these idiots as
\’Otago students\’, whilst completely ignoring the fact that they
represented approximately 0.008% of us.

This concerns me because it seems as if no one really gives a damn about all
of the GOOD students at Otago whenever we legitimately get upset about
something.  I\’m not sure if you could actually do anything to help me but I
would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.

Yours sincerely,
Scott xxxxxxx

He’s right of course. If the issue doesn’t suit the agenda then it gets ignored. Who sets the agenda? Good question.

And perhaps John Armstrong should reflect that while the integrity of parliament is very important, so too is the reason for parliament, which is a forum of elected members there to represent people. And give them a voice. The practice of democracy requires balance, but at it’s base is representation. Not ceremony.

PS: Scott gave me permission to use his email


Guts and honesty

Posted by Clare Curran on August 4th, 2011

I don’t suck up to people. Sometimes at my cost. But I want to acknowledge the courage and integrity of Labour’s Leader Phil Goff today in challenging the SIS around whether or not he was briefed on the Israeli backpackers issue.

Phil is a man of great honesty and integrity. He holds the relationships with public servants and agencies in high regard and would never make public comments of this sort lightly.

I hope they’re taken seriously:

Here’s what he said:

Labour Leader Phil Goff is adamant that he never read and was never shown a document by the SIS about the so-called Israeli spy investigation.

“The head of the SIS, Warren Tucker, has released a note under the Official Information Act to Cameron Slater from Whaleoil that has a notation on it showing he believes he showed me a document relating to the investigation during one of our regular meetings.

“I was not shown that document. I never read that document. Warren Tucker is wrong. He may have brought the document to the meeting but he never showed it to me. Mr Tucker acknowledges that I was never briefed on or shown two other documents the SIS compiled on the issue of the Israeli backpackers.

“He has since shown me the first document and I know I have never seen it before.  He has also told me in writing that the NZSIS does not hold any acknowledgement from me as having read or received the document.

“I was never ‘briefed’ by the SIS. When asked to explain, Warren Tucker says he ‘flicked’ over the issue during a regular meeting with me but ‘didn’t dwell on it’. He says he probably suggested to me that it was not significant. That is not a briefing or a discussion.

“The SIS also chose not to brief the Parliamentary select committee that oversees their activities.

“As Minister of Foreign Affairs during the Mossad incident in 2004, I would have had a keen interest in any new allegations and remembered any briefing clearly.

“I will not stand by and have my credibility questioned over this issue. In future, I will only meet with Warren Tucker or representatives of the SIS if there is someone independent in the room to keep a true and accurate record of what is discussed.

“It is interesting to note that the request for the note was made under the Official Information Act by National Party blogger Cameron Slater.

“Rather than the selective release of information, I call on the SIS and John Key to release all the documentation they have about the investigation into the Israelis and give a full and frank account of what happened to New Zealanders.”


Would we ever be brave enough?

Posted by Clare Curran on August 1st, 2011

Last year Labour embarked on the first attempt by a (NZ) political party to develop an open policy. OpenLabourNZ began the process of developing Labour’s policy on open and transparent government. It was an experiment, but it signaled a change in approach.

This is a step further. I believe it’s exciting and heralds a new way forward to bring people and politics closer together.

Icelanders on Friday delivered what may set the template for other governments: a crowdsourced constitution.

A group of 25 citizens presented a draft of the constitution to Iceland’s parliament. The group, which is made up of ordinary residents, compiled the document online with the help of hundreds of others. The constitution council posted the first draft in April on its website and then let citizens comment via a Facebook Page. The council members are also active on Twitter, post videos of themselves on YouTube and put pictures on Flickr.

Iceland’s original constitution was created in 1944 when the country gained independence from Denmark. The country’s economic collapse in 2008 prompted calls for a rewrite with checks and balances to prevent a repeat of the financial crisis. The draft was due before the end of July. It may be put to a referendum without the input of parliament.

Iceland may be ahead of the curve on using social media to inform its new government, but it is not alone: Earlier this month, volunteers at a series of hackathons at Stanford University created a site where Egyptians could discuss their proposed constitution.

Hat-tip @Teh_Aimee on Twitter


Tweet of the Week

Posted by Clare Curran on July 24th, 2011

Moana is unable to post this week. I am the ring in. So I shall start with a King and end with a Queen (yes I will)

PS: I don’t think my layout is as good as hers

These words give us all strength and courage

NorwayUN NorwayUN

King Harald of #Norway: “when the nation is tested, the strength, cohesion and courage of the Norwegian people becomes evident.” #Utøya

15 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

and these

@andy_williamson Andy Williamson

RT Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg: “The answer to violence is even more democracy. Even more humanity” Hope our world leaders are listening

23 hours ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply

Retweeted by Roselady64 and 100+ others

and these

olavkjorven Olav Kjorven

Deeply saddened by senseless attacks in Norway. Thanks for outpouring of support from around the world to a hurt but sturdy people.

17 hours ago Favorite Undo Retweet Reply

then there was this. Not so good

homebrewcrew Home Brew

‘Key uses Norway massacre to justify NZs military involvement in Afghanistan’. Can we please do something bout this guy in November people?

9 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

and the clash of stories

mingyeow Ming Yeow Ng

Via @dcurtis: Norway was attacked, Amy Winehouse is dead, Greece has defaulted, the US is about to, and New York melted. What a week :(

7 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Billy Bragg had this to say about the 27 club

billybragg Billy Bragg

It’s not age that Hendrix, Jones, Joplin, Morrison, Cobain & Amy have in common – it’s drug abuse, sadly #27club

14 hours ago Favorite Undo Retweet Reply

and the final word goes to Her Majesty about “that other story” which, am pretty sure, won’t go away easily

@Queen_UK Elizabeth Windsor

No, Mr Murdoch, you cannot “pop round” after you’ve finished at the Commons.

19 Jul via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply


kama sutra provides lessons to the leader of the national party

Posted by Trevor Mallard on July 17th, 2011

The trip to India wasn’t a total waste for the leader of the national party. He has had more positions than in the kama sutra on asset sales and taxation.

Was going to post on the fact that he has been missing in inaction since Tuesday. But The Standard beat me to it.

He now makes a habit of avoiding Parliament when in trouble. Combination of the house and journos on the bridge mean Captain panic pants locks him in his room. Wednesday was another example.

And it looks like he will have to share the front pages of major US newspapers and leads in the US electronic media. Pesky debt crisis. Wonder if he will offer Cullen’s services in getting country to nil net debt.

Meanwhile the #ownourfuture site is going gangbusters.


The slippery slope

Posted by Clare Curran on July 13th, 2011

Public television broadcasting ended in NZ last night. The TVNZ Amendment Bill passed which kills the TVNZ Charter. TVNZ is now required to be a commercial broadcaster. it remains State owned for now but is likely being prepared for sale by a government that has no commitment to public broadcasting.

While the National Govt axes the Charter and drives a stake into public TV broadcasting,  there’s a mounting crisis in the media world; in the relationship between media and politicians which could severely impact on the Murdoch media empire and the UK Govt.

The News of the World phone hacking scandal has reverberated around the globe. The Murdoch empire has tentacles in many countries.

There’s some important lessons here.

Independent public media, not captured by vested interests is critical to the health of a nation. The public needs to know that politicians and media aren’t in bed with each other, that there’s standards that media adhere to and lines that wont be crossed. If they are crossed, that the judicial system will investigate and prosecute. And wont be captured and muzzled by fear of powerful media.

But the passing of this Bill takes NZ on a slippery slope to a place where vested interests rule our media. Hopefully not our politicians.

But.

We’ve already seen the government fork out $43 million to bail out Mediaworks. It’s pretty clear that TVNZ is being prepared for sale and meanwhile Sky gains a bigger slice of the unregulated broadcasting sphere. Unfettered. Not good.

Labour is committed to a strong independent public media. If you have had any doubts about the need, just look across the hemisphere.

All governments are susceptible to media influence. Especially big media empires. Which makes for a compelling case for independent publicly funded media which is arms length from government.


Damage control

Posted by Clare Curran on July 9th, 2011

Just watched an Australian (part Murdoch-owned) Sky News report where The (Murdoch-owned) Australian newspaper is forced to “deny” phone hacking activities aka those undertaken by the (Murdoch-owned) News of the World (NotW) newspaper.

Interesting.

And think I agree with the Telegraph editor David Hughes (did I say that?) who thinks that the decision to close News of the World is not only about protecting News International’s chief executive Rebekah Brooks:

“Most of all, this move is designed to ensure that News Corporation’s bid for BSkyB goes ahead. That is at the heart of Murdoch’s strategy, not the fate of Britain’s best-selling red top.

The BBC has gathered a series of opinions on it which is worth a look.

Murdoch’s decision to close NotW is all about damage control. It’s certainly a disaster for him re NotW. But there’s a much bigger play happening. UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s response today yesterday to call an inquiry into the phone hacking shows just how big that play is.

David Cameron is now very exposedAndy Coulson, his former press spokesman, has been arrested  in connection with allegations of corruption and phone hacking.

Cameron has been busy covering himself. Shows what can happen when those with the levers of power over-reach themselves.

It appears the NotW demise is the fall guy. I believe they will attempt to ensure that the BSkyB network remains in Murdoch hands , but events may overtake.

Chickens coming home to roost.

Makes you wonder about our patch.

Update: And this just takes the cake. Cameron, calling for an inquiry into the phone hacking, calls for the end of close relationship between politicians and the media. Only when it doesn’t suit!


#ownourfuture

Posted by Trevor Mallard on July 6th, 2011

If you are into twitter watch #ownourfuture over the next couple of weeks.


Can we work together on some things?

Posted by Clare Curran on July 4th, 2011

The internet was conceived on the ideas of equality and access. People sharing and making new things happen.

In the spirit of this, I participated in a panel discussion last Friday at NetHui in Auckland. The topic was  government and openness. What it might look like in 2020.

During the discussion I asked my fellow politicians on the panel, Nikki Kaye, National and Gareth Hughes, Green, if we could form a cross parliamentary group to see where we could find some commonalities on the important issues facing us in becoming more open.

They agreed. Our first meeting could be this week. We’ll keep you posted.

If you’d like to see the panel discussion click here


One of the most powerful of speeches…

Posted by Clare Curran on July 3rd, 2011

Late last week I spent a day and a half at NetHui in Auckland. Couldn’t make the full 3 days. It’s a new initiative, organised by InternetNZ.

It will be an annual event. That all MPs should attend and all of you.

It was all about the internet. What it means for us. What the opportunities and the scary challenges are. And that it’s about equality.

Lawrence Lessig was the keynote speaker.

Some takeout messages:

  • Kids, dropouts, outsiders have been the innovators and have developed the major changes on the internet
  • The internet is about reviving a culture of passive consumption to re-creating a culture of sharing, participation and making new stuff.
  • The need for truth tellers about the network.
  • The enormous challenges for policy-makers and law makers. One of which is for politicians to move away from a culture of being funded  and therefore influenced by private interests. To halt law-making by lobbyists. And consider other ways.
  • How NZ could become a beacon of light in showing the way forward on many of the issues that arise because of the internet

If you watch nothing else for a while, watch his speech. It’s on Youtube in 3 parts.

Part 2 is here

Part 3 is here


Transparency around lobbying important

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 20th, 2011

I don’t think New Zealand politicians have anything to fear from more open and transparent rules around the activities of lobbyists. The lobbyists I’ve come into contact with in my short time as an MP have been decent people and shouldn’t have anything to fear from a more transparent system either. In fact, the natural suspicion that the secrecy around their current activity arouses would be reduced, potentially leaving them better off in the long run.

I’m pleased the Labour Party has decided to support the Private Members Bill introduced by Sue Kedgley at First Reading, should it be drawn from the ballot. The Bill does two main things. First, it establishes a Register of Lobbyists, to be administered by the Auditor General. Second, it requires the Auditor General to establish a Lobbyist’s Code of Conduct and ensure that it is enforced.

I’ve had a chance to have a quick read through Sue’s Bill and I think it’s a good start, although I’m concerned that it may go wider than necessary. For example, as I read it under the current wording of the Bill, a plumber who makes an appointment to see their local MP to complain that the registration fees imposed by their professional body are too high would technically be deemed to be a lobbyist and therefore be required to register as one or be in breach of the law. I think that’s going a bit far.

New Zealanders are fortunate that we have a form of government that is incredibly open and accessible. Anyone can make an appointment to see their local MP and I’d hate to see any moves to regulate professional lobbyists compromise that. But that’s a question of detail and I’m sure it can be worked through at select committee, should the Bill make it that far. This is certainly a debate worth having.


Is parliamentary debate a farce?

Posted by Clare Curran on June 19th, 2011

I’ve participated in a few parliamentary debates on important legislation in the last two and a half years.

As a new MP , with little prior experience of parliamentary process, it’s taken a while to get my head around the procedural stuff and some of the seemingly odd rules. Standing orders, conventions etc. Some of them are very odd. Outdated even. Others are grounded in sense and democractic principles.

I believe in the way we run our parliament. That a Bill gets put up by the government, goes to a select committee where the public get the right to submit and comment, it gets thoroughly scrutinised and commented on by officials and the members of the committee from all sides of the House. A revised version goes back to parliament, where it goes through several more stages before becoming law.

But I’m becoming more convinced that much of this process is a farce. Under this government. I don’t know enough about previous governments to comment. But I reckon it can’t have been worse than it is today.

Urgency is used frequently and consistently to push through non-urgent bills and to rush through laws that suit the government’s purpose without the public’s ability to comment. Arrogant disregard for good process and the importance of public scrutiny. And arrogant disregard for the role of Opposition.

Last Thursday an example of this has left me feeling that the concept of actual parliamentary debate is all just a farce.

Steven Joyce is a new Minister. He’s been in parliament as long as me. He’s smart. He’s described as the Minister for everything. He’s completely self assured, arrogant and brushes off public criticism on any issues as being irrelevant.

Humility, the ability to listen and take due regard are qualities I value. Steven Joyce does not posssess these.

The biggest piece of legislative change in the telecommunications sector is currently going through our parliament. Last Thursday saw us make progress in the committee stage through about half of the Bill. It is a very controversial law change. The select committee process was rushed. Labour and the Greens are vehemently opposed to the Bill in its present form. The Act Party members were opposed to it, but appear to have changed their minds. The Maori Party did a deal with the government in order to buy their support.
(more…)


Key puts up ‘NZ For Sale’ sign

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 13th, 2011

It’s time for John Key’s government to stop being dictated to by multi-national corporations and start putting the best interests of New Zealanders ahead of corporate profits. News that SkyCity has decided to invest in a new International Convention Centre in Auckland is great news for the economy, locally and nationally. But that doesn’t mean we should rush out and change our laws and regulations to suit the interests of SkyCity’s shareholders.

When Warner Brothers held a gun to National’s head, John Key rolled over and changed our employment laws to suit their whims. Now we’re seeing him roll over and offer to change our gambling laws to suit SkyCity. That’s not good enough. The National government should be guided by what is in the best interests of all New Zealanders, not what’s in the best interests of corporate giants.

It’s ironic that National aren’t willing to back New Zealand companies like KiwiRail, preferring to see contracts for new trains and carriages shipped offshore, but when one of the private sector big corporates clicks their fingers it seems there isn’t anything John Key won’t do to please them.


Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Posted by Trevor Mallard on June 10th, 2011

Great Stiglitz article in Vanity Fair.

Not entirely applicable here but much of it is.

Filed under: democracy

Lobbyists and Transparency

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 4th, 2011

Tracy Watkins has an interesting column in this morning’s Dominion Post about the rise of lobbyists and the lack of rules and transparency around them in the New Zealand political sphere. I agree with a lot of what she writes. Now unlike my friends and colleagues in the Greens, I don’t think a Minister’s decision-making is going to be swayed by a ticket to the rugby and a few sausage rolls, but I am concerned about the increasing number of lobbyists who seem to have unrestricted access to Parliament buildings and the lack of transparency around that.

I’ll be upfront right here and now and say that I’ve been to several sporting events at the invitation of corporate box owners, often joining MPs from other political parties. But I think MPs, and particularly ministers, need to be careful about which invitations they accept. For example, it would be a very bad look for Steven Joyce to be seen in a Telecom corporate box around the time he is making significant decisions on broadband. On the other hand, I can’t see there being any issue with National backbenchers accepting corporate hospitality from government banker Westpac. They’re not going to have any influence over whether the government banking contract is renewed anyway.

I think New Zealand has come a long way in recent years on issues around transparency. Our elected representatives are now subject to a quite stringent declaration of interests process, and some of the loopholes (for example the ‘annonymising’ trusts that Tracy refers to in her column) have actually been closed so that MPs can’t hide where they have their money stashed, unless they truly don’t know where it is themselves (in other words it’s in a blind trust, although I myself remain skeptical about just how ‘blind’ those trusts actually are).

However, I’d also point out that those who report on our activities aren’t subject to any such transparency, and I think that’s an area that we should also look at. I’ve met just as many press gallery journalists in corporate boxes at the Westpac Stadium as I have other MPs. Given they have huge influence over what the public get to know about the decision-making of elected leaders, why shouldn’t the journalists also have to be transparent about that? When journalists receive free travel, which they often do from the airlines, why shouldn’t they have to declare that? (I do acknowledge that many will put a small statement at the end of an article of someone else has paid for their airfares, but they are not obliged to do so by anything other than their own ethical standards).

With the government increasingly using military aircraft to get around the country and around the world, why shouldn’t the journalists who travel with them on those same flights have to be transparent about that? If we as the Opposition were to critiscise a Minister for using an airforce plane rather than a commercial plane, and the journalist covering that critiscism had also been a passenger on said military aircraft, surely their readers are entitled to know that?

I’ve had quite a bit to do with a number of press gallery journalists in my time working in politics and, for the most part, I think they’ve got incredibly high ethical standards. But I think most politicians do as well. If the fourth estate want to argue, as they do, that we can’t rely on a politician’s word and sense of ethics and we do, in fact, need more rigid and transparent rules around personal interests, why shouldn’t the same argument apply to those who report on our activities?

I think this is a really interesting area of discussion, and I congratulate Tracy for bringing it up. I’m looking forward to the phone ringing off the hook over the next 24 hours as her colleagues stampede to report my call of greater transparency on their part. Oh wait…


Crony Watch #2

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 27th, 2011

A while back I asked why the NBR doesn’t run it’s ‘Crony Watch’ column anymore. When Labour was in government they were very quick to critiscise when anyone who had any connection to the Labour Party was appointed to any sort of board or committee. Strangely they haven’t been as vocal and vigilant since National came to power, but there are certainly plenty of examples they could be highlighting. For example:

  • John Key’s electorate chairman, Stephen McElrea, has been given a role on a working group selecting proposals for taxpayer-funded political documentaries about health, education, welfare and law and order. He is also the deputy chair of NZ on Air, who get to choose which Kiwi TV shows get taxpayer subsidies.
  • Richard Griffin, former press secretary to the last National government (and often confused for the former PM) has been appointed Chair of the Board of Radio New Zealand.
  • Former National MP and Cabinet Minister Roger Sowry appointed to the Board of the Electricity Authority and to Chair the Councils of two polytechnics.
  • Former National MP and Leader Don Brash appointed to Chair the government’s 2025 taskforce.
  • Unsuccessful National Party candidate, and next on their list, Conway Powell, appointed to the Health Research Council of New Zealand.
  • Alastair Scott, who unsuccessfully tried to roll John Hayes as National candidate in the Wairarapa, was rewarded with a seat on the Crown Health Funding Agency.
  • National’s candidate in Mt Albert, Ravi Musuku, was rewarded with a slot on the Human Rights Review Tribunal after being rolled in favour of Melissa Lee for the by-election.
  • Former National MP Ian McLean appointed to the Lakes District Health Board.
  • Another former National MP Margaret Moir appointed to the Podiatrists’ Board.
  • Yet another former National MP, Clem Simich, appointed to the Residence Review Board.
  • One of the authors of Don Brash’s Orewa speech, Michael Bassett, appointed to the Board of Te Papa.

I don’t think someone should be disqualified from appointment to a role just because they have been, or are, involved with a political party. But those appointments will always be, and should be, subject to greater scrutiny. That scrutiny should be no less just because it is a National government rather than a Labour one.


National backs their mates, again…

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 26th, 2011

Last year the National government was roundly criticized for setting aside $4.8 million in the Budget to be allocated to the Pacific Development Agency (PEDA) without a competitive tender process.  Keep in mind that when first quizzed about it Bill English’s first reaction, as it so often is, was to deny the whole thing. It took months of investigative work by the NZ Herald to establish that in fact not only did English know all about it, it was inserted into the Budget at his behest and officials didn’t know what to make of it.

The NZ Herald also suggested at the time the funding was part of an English-inspired effort to secure greater support for National amongst pacific voters. In the end they were forced to back down and a competitive tender process resulted in PEDA missing out completely.

Did they learn their lesson? It seems not. This year’s Budget allocated $2.4 million to Parents Inc, once again without a competitive tender process. The chief executive of Parents Inc, Bruce Pilbrow, was the Deputy Commissioner of the Families Commission (appointed by Paula Bennett) until he resigned just two days before the Budget. Why wasn’t the contract put out for tender? When did Pilbrow find out Parents Inc was getting the funding?

At the very least it’s a bad look for the government to set funds aside for specific organisations without going through robust processes to ensure the taxpayer is getting value for money. It leaves them open to charges of cronyism and looking after their mates, but then again, there are plenty of other examples of where the National Party are doing just that!